Appeal No. 2006-0486 Page 4 Application No. 10/300,916 proof that casings reduce noise when placed in fronts [sic] of noise producing parts, Thorpe . . . teaches a cover or noise reduction apparatus 1 attached to the landing gear to reduce noise is well known in the art (see column 1, first four paragraphs). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have used a noise reduction apparatus in a spaced relationship on the landing gear in Derrien et al.’s [i.e. Derrien ‘030] system as taught by Williams and further supported by Thorpe . . . to reduce noise. Please note that during the design stage, it is [sic, would have been] obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to have made the noise reduction apparatus accommodate the landing gear when the landing is in the stowage position so that it can be used repeatedly. This rejection is deficient in a number of respects. First, the disclosure of Derrien ‘030 contains nothing which indicates that the landing gear thereof includes any noise inducing components for which a noise reducing apparatus would be desirable. Second, contrary to the examiner’s above “findings,” Williams contains no express teaching that stream-lined housing 9 (which the examiner refers to as a cover) constitutes a “noise reduction apparatus” (id.). The rejection still would be1 1This erroneous finding has been made with respect to a number of references. As correctly pointed out by the appellants, only Thorpe contains any express teaching of a landing gear attachment which reduces noise. The appellants also have correctly explained that the examiner has misconstrued the Blackburn reference as being non-specific with respect to whether its landing gear is fixed or retractable whereas, in fact, the landing gear is expressly disclosed as being fixed.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007